Diogenes wrote: Wizwom said that people who are mentally ill have a right to do what they want too. I provided the example of the autistic kid who was prevented from running out into high speed traffic. The fact that it was a kid involved is irrelevant to the point, unless you are going to argue that autistic kids should be protected while autistic adults should not.
Somehow I don't think you are going to make that argument.
You are mixing up more than one subtopic thread.
Mayhaps, but perhaps you haven't achieved the necessary understanding to connect the sub-threads.
For the following discussion, I choose to take your statement about running into traffic to illustrate the doing of something potentially dangerous to ones-self.
Rule # 1: People (all sapient beings) have the right to voluntary action. PERIOD!
So; yes, the autistic child has the right to run out into traffic if he wants to (ignoring for the moment the violation of the driver's right to voluntary action). So does the autistic adult. (I shall now wait a second for you to stop screaming).
What you have to ask is "what does voluntary mean?"
For our purposes, let us leave it as "to knowingly and responsibly accept the outcome of an action". Children, though they have the right to do a bunch of things, seldom have the capacity to volunteer. This is essentially what being a "child" means. So when an adult gets a child to do something like... (choose your own bad thing for children); the child has done NOTHING wrong. The child has every right to do that bad thing. The adult on the other hand has almost certainly done something wrong to the child as it is doubtful that the child had the capacity to volunteer for that bad thing. Thus the adult has involved a child involuntarily, the definition of wrong.
What is fundamentally right does not change from person to person (voluntary action). Whether a specific incident is right or wrong depends on the state of the "voluntary involvement".
Is it voluntary action for a stray cosmic ray to hit a neuron in your brain causing you to jump one way or the other? How much different is that from flooding your synapses with chemicals that alter the brains signaling pathways?
In any case, i'm not sure i'm following you. I think you are saying it's okay for mental patients (people who are mentally ill) to play in the street or something.
KitemanSA wrote: Wow, perhaps another breakthru!
Please understand that I COMPLETELY support your desire to address the "bad" results that effect innocent people. Absolutely, 100% agreed. The question is how.
Now I see why I thought i'd already responded on this. You are reading my old posts while I am making new ones.
Yup, slowly catching up!
Diogenes wrote: I suggested one idea. Assume people can handle something until they demonstrate that they can't. then put them on a list to be interdicted. It's a risky methodology, but it would seem that it could achieve the result of separating abusers from what they abuse.
Sounds plausible. If the govm't would try something like this, while assuring that juries KNEW they had the right to tell government they were going too far, this might work.
Diogenes wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: So here is the issue. Government keeps trying to do good
I pointed this out earlier. The Government just doing it's JOB is "good."
Not necessarily. They may be TRYING to do good. Or do you mean that the government doing JUST its legitimate job is "good"?
Diogenes wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: by making personal actions that are bad for the folks that do them in felonies and treating those bad things like they are wrong. But they are not "wrong".
They are if they increase the probability of hurting someone. (Which they usually do.) Remember, a drunk driver is arrested even if he's harmed no one. He's arrested because he recklessly increased the danger level to people and property.
Nope. Wrong is not related to probability of hurting someone. It is involving a person in an action involuntarily, and ONLY that. Increasing the probability of hurting someone is potentially BAD, not wrong.
Diogenes wrote: The difference between "Vice" and "Crime" is another one of those artificial perception boundaries which I am always going on about. The terms are not black and white, but a range between the two. They are "Fuzzy", not clear and distinct.
This is your primary lack of understanding. The distinction between the two IS black and white (actually bad and wrong).
MSimon wrote: So yes. As a former communist and now libertarian I have learned my lesson. Less government is better government.
Agreed, except when it is a role which ONLY government can and should perform. Defense is such a role, as is law enforcement. I do not want a private company performing law enforcement. It MUST be done by government.
Wow, you need to look around you a bit. IFAICT, law inforcement in this country is performed PRIMARILY by private companies. I don't know the exact numbers and am not really interested enough to do the necessary research, but it would surprise the heck out of me if there weren't many private cops, perhaps even dozens, for every public one.
This is an occurrence of which I am completely unfamiliar. Security guards are one thing, but Police officers derive their authority from the State or Federal governments. Unless the private cops are former or current State commissioned police officers, I don't see how they can enforce any laws.
Diogenes wrote: One does not need to label one thing a "Vice" and the other thing a "Crime" to be aware that a properly tailored campaign against them might bear fruit.
Absolutely true. It doesn't matter what you label it. But if you treat a vice as if it were a crime, you WILL make the situation worse. Only if you treat it as the vice it is will your "tailored campaign" result in good.
Diogenes wrote: I used to favor the US embargo of Cuba, but years ago I realized that the quickest way to bring down that government would be to let the people know what kind of stuff they could have, and what kind of lives they could have if they just over threw their government.
Maybe soon you will recognize that favoring the drug war is a similar mistake.
KitemanSA wrote: Actually, no one has the right to vote. They have a legal franchize or not. Remember, I recognize that "Right" and "Wrong" are moral absolutes. If it is not right, it is wrong. And what defines the distinction is the fact that people (sapient beings if you want to get inclusive) have the right to voluntary action. Period.
Now I will watch as you sputter and huff and bring up arguements ethical and legal.
I like your use of the term "Sapient". It refers to the possession of sapience: "the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment."
Love it!
Danka!
Technically, it is "act with wisdom" but I do agree that they basically result in the same state.
Diogenes wrote:In the movie "Ridicule" (excellent french movie) the main character (Le Marquis Grégoire Ponceludon de Malavoy) is put into a contest with a table full of other people and they are all challenged to be witty before the soup arrives. (Because there are 13, (un unlucky number) The loser must leave the table without being served.) Unbeknownst to him, the beautiful Madame de Blayac (his lover) starts paying footsie with his crotch. (because she is trying to prevent him from winning.) Needless to say, the man cannot concentrate because his judgment is being interfered with. When it comes his turn, he does poorly, and is ejected from the group.
He is told he must eat with the servants, to which another noble comments, "monsieur, one is known by the company he keeps." to which he responded, "Not at all. Judas kept excellent company. "
Excellent anecdote!
It was an awesome movie! I am a big fan of foreign films, and I must say, the French surprise me with the quality of some of their movies. Le Pacte des loups was also very good.
KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote: The point being, you cannot claim judgment when you are unable to exercise it. Taking substances which tamper with your judgment renders it inoperative.
In truth, I am not quite sure what your point is here. If you, while straight, choose to take the substance, that makes it voluntary, and you must be held culpable for adverse results that flow from your choice. However, if you DIDN'T choose to take it, you are not culpable. OK?
It's a catch 22. To understand fully what it does, you have to take it. If you take it, you are caught. If you don't understand fully what it does, how can you make an informed decision about it? Judging by the examples of others, "the only winning move is not to play."
KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote: Another example. Ordinary rats will not stay in one place and push a button till they die. Install a wire into their brain's pleasure center, wire it to the button, let them see that pushing the button gives them pleasure, and many rats will push the button till they die.
Are you to claim they are exercising judgment?
Heck no. They are rats. They are NOT sapient. They are not expected to exercise judgement.
Ha ha ha ha ha... Obviously such a thing wouldn't work on humans? (or would it? cackling evilly while rubbing his hands together. )
When something is wired into the pleasure center of your brain, it doesn't matter if you are sapient or not. Once the juice starts flowing, you can't make rational decisions any longer. Women sometimes have that effect on men too.
KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote: p.s. Did you enjoy my sputtering and huffing? I know I did!
KitemanSA wrote: Let me try one more time. The distinction is on the one hand, an adult doing something to himself (vice) or an adult doing to someone else involuntarily (crime).
And both are like children in their understanding of what they are tampering with.
Ok, maybe I am detecting your problem.
You seem to be saying that while high, the adult looses tse's ability to understand/volunteer. This makes tse a child for that period.
If the adult CHOOSES to undergo the alteration, that is tse's right, but said choice does not eliminate the culpabilty for and adverse results of said choice. If the adult is dosed by fraud/force/etc., then that temporary child is not culpable.
The effect is permanent. (for some.) Embarking on drug use is transformational for many people.
KitemanSA wrote: Your gun puts me in danger so by your argument you should be criminally prosecuted for owning a gun. I don't agree with you on that.
My gun is completely harmless unless I point it in your direction. The owning is benign, the pointing is the danger. If you wish to extend the analogy to drugs, owning a trunkfull will not harm anyone, it is the using that causes the problem. To further extend the analogy, owning a gun serves a beneficial purpose if it deters others from harming you. Owning a trunkfull of drugs which you never use, is completely pointless.
Hmmm. Pointing a gun at me does not harm either. I may percieve a potential for harm so I have every right to point out that I don't volunteer to be threatened like that. I have every right to inform you that if you continue to point your gun at me I will take it as permission to do what I choose to stop you from involving me involuntarily. I would also support a uniform social contract to make that the default condition. But there has been no harm until you pull the trigger or hit me with it or whatever.
Diogenes wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: I would try to sooth this disagreement by noting that it is damned near impossible to be driving under the influence without outward and specific actions that involve others involuntarily. So the simple fact that someone is driving under the influence is not a crime, but the weaving and other such behavour that almost always goes along with it is.
Actually, you can be driving perfectly. If they stop you for a tail light, you're still busted.
Busted, perhaps. Criminal, no.
Diogenes wrote:I have a friend who has long argued that drunk driving should be legal. The only thing which should be illegal is violating a traffic law. As long as you don't violate a traffic law, they shouldn't bother you.
I tend to agree with your friend, though I would say as long as you don't involve other drivers involuntarily.
Diogenes wrote: It's actually a perspective with some merit, especially as I mentioned previously. Not everyone's blood/alcohol works the same way.
Very true, and quite consistent with my point, thank you!
Diogenes wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: So my point is it is the involuntary interACTION that is the crime, not the condition that might create it.
Makes you wonder why people try to use being drunk as an excuse for bad behavior then.
I suspect it is because they have discovered they can con others into "forgiving" them that way, which is unfortunate for society.
Diogenes wrote: Borrowing, Unauthorized taking, stealing. They all overlap in terms of meaning, but not necessarily in terms of the act. The differences are dependent on the outcomes.
Some people intentionally mis-use words to hide their wrong-doing. That doesn't make the real meaning the same. Borrowing, the temporary, authorized use of something not your own, is NOT stealing. And saying you "borrowed" something you stole does not make it ok.
Sometimes you need to look at the deeper meaning, not the surface obfuscation!
KitemanSA wrote: To expand on that question, in this case, is using a drug a crime to you because it is morally wrong, ethically bad, or legally a felony?
B-7.... You sunk my battleship!
Battleship is a two dimensional plot system. Imagine the game with three dimensions. Now imagine it with four or more. All of the things you mention constitute components which sum to a vector. The vector's magnitude and direction are dependent upon the size of each component.
...
My objection to drug use is based on the summed components of all information which I have learned, and the perceived consequences thereof.
At last, we have drilled until we hit the crux of your mistake .
Morality is NOT a vector. It is a signum like function. There is no "right, righter, rightest". Things are EITHER "right" OR "wrong". See Rule # 2: You can't do GOOD by doing WRONG. It will, eventually, in all endevours, make your good intent lead to hell. It may take a while, indeed, for a short while the J-Curve may exert itself and it may APPEAR to be good, but eventually it will lead to hell.
________
It is not a good intent. It is a societal learned feedback trait from previous experience. Societal rules are all learned feedback systems. Society is like a giant worm. It moves forward in various directions until it encounters pain. At that point it stops and backs up, resolving not to go in that direction again. The illusion of "Good intentions" is simply how the phenomenon appears to manifests itself at our level of perception.
KitemanSA wrote:
What I have not yet been able to extract from the universe is an understanding of whether doing wrong is a negative multiplier or a negative space. By that I mean I am not sure whether it makes all efforts bad or whether it makes efforts turn out the opposite of the intent.
I do understand that you can't do good by doing wrong. It winds up bad. What I am not sure of is what happens when you try to do BAD while doing wrong. Does it succeed in doing bad or does it wind up good. There is so little observable data on this that I am not positive. There are few evil people (folks who INTEND to do bad). Most data is the result of well intentioned people who don't understand morality. I have some experience to suggest it actually produces a long term good effect. This may be why over the ages, evil people eventually lose out. I'm not sure though.
I can simplify this. "You can't do good by doing bad" is a slogan not based on any solid philosophical ground. The Terms "Do", "Good" and "Bad" are all subjective.
I'm sure Genghis Khan thought he was doing good (for himself) by doing bad. (to others.)
According to IntLibber it could do you a lot of good. I choose not to test his theory. However, try the mantra for a while, you may achieve the desired end!
KitemanSA wrote: I mean, if a parent is caring for his child in a positive manner while under the influence, and a car come thru the wall and harms the child, that is an accident, but hardly the parent involving the child in it. With that caveat, we are approaching an agreement.
I am refering to the much more common condition in which the parent decides they would rather get high than work and bring home food, or buy clothes, or change diapers, or make sure the child eats, you know, stuff like that. Not to mention allowing the child to see the parent getting high, and thereby learning by example to follow in the parent's footsteps.
To the degree that parent is neglecting tse's responsibility to the child, that parent should be held culpable for any harm, no matter what the cause; drugs, alchohol, the Jerry Springer Show.
Diogenes wrote: I agree, but we need to keep that understanding of the natural law above the level of an instinctive reptilian brain search for pleasure.
Just to check, have I said ANYTHING to make you think that I don't recognize natural law above the level of the reptilian? If so, it is a mis-communication.
I believe that I have REPEATEDLY stressed the highest level of moral law, SAPIENT voluntary action.
WizWom wrote:Diogenes: A criminal is someone who commits a crime; if something is legal it is not a crime. This is a tautology, because it is inherent in the definition of "criminal".
If you think this, you are mistaken. Crime has nothing to do with legality, though lawyers would have you believe so. Crime has to do with morality. Something is a crime if it is "wrong". Something is a FELONY if it is illegal.
WizWom wrote: Furthermore, a private company should be able to hire whoever it likes, with whatever criteria it wants. It is their money, they should get to spend it how they like.
At this point, I would like to introduce a hair to split.
If you would have said a sole proprietership or partnership, I would tend to agree. But corporations are legal "persons" that are the construct of government. I have no problem with government defining what the character of that "person" will be in order to be recognized, I mean if we insist on recognizing them at all (not my first choise).
WizWom wrote: Likewise, a customer should be allowed to do business with whoever they like, with whatever criteria they please.
Yup.
WizWom wrote: Rules forcing affirmative action, equal opportunity, and equal pay for "equal" work are damaging to the economic strength of nations, people and to the dignity of all involved. And, of course, such rules DO NOT WORK.
Diogenes wrote: Is it voluntary action for a stray cosmic ray to hit a neuron in your brain causing you to jump one way or the other? How much different is that from flooding your synapses with chemicals that alter the brains signaling pathways?
I try and I try but it sometimes seems not to be sinking in.
Re the cosmic ray: it is a natural part of the universe and occasionally they will make your synapse mis-fire. So what. It has nothing to do with moral, or immoral behaviour, nor ethical/unethical behaviour either.
Flooding my OWN synapses with chemicals may alter the pathways but that is an unethical decision, not an immoral one (bad, not wrong).
Diogenes wrote: In any case, i'm not sure i'm following you. I think you are saying it's okay for mental patients (people who are mentally ill) to play in the street or something.
Define "ok". If you define it as "good" then heck no its not good, don't be silly! If you define it as "right", (ignoring for this sub-thread the wrong-doing to the drivers) then yes.
So, you tell me what you mean by "ok" and the answer will be one of those two. Define it differently and who knows!
Edited in an attempt to clarify the two choises.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
) 
